- 9 -
Petitioner's reading of Estate of Brunetti is incorrect and is
contradicted by the clear holding in Estate of Fine v.
Commissioner, supra.
Decedent's will directs that "estate taxes shall be borne by
my residuary estate." This provision of the will indicates that
decedent intended that property passing by specific bequest
should not bear any portion of the estate tax. See Estate of
Phillips v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 797, 800-801 (1988), in which
we concluded that none of the Federal estate tax due on the
residuary estate should be allocated to the surviving spouse's
interest. The general provisions of the Louisiana apportionment
statute applied because the decedent in Estate of Phillips did
not provide for an alternative plan of apportioning estate tax
within the residuary. A similar conclusion was reached in Lewald
v. United States, 245 F. Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).
By contrast, in First Natl. Bank of Atlanta v. United
States, 634 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1981), no State apportionment
statute was in effect. The subject will provided for the
residuary to be divided into two parts, one of which was a
marital trust, and for all estate taxes to be paid from the
residuary of the estate. Stating that "there is no provision for
payment of estate taxes only out of the non-marital portion of
the estate, even if the residue were to be divided prior to
payment of such taxes", the Court held that the Federal estate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011